Niche partitioning at multiple scales facilitates coexistence among mosquito larvae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A theoretical dichotomy in community ecology distinguishes between mechanisms that stabilize species coexistence and those that cause neutral drift. Stable coexistence is predicted to occur in communities where competing species have niche‐partitioning mechanisms that reduce interspecific competition. Neutral communities are predicted to be structured by stochastic processes that are not influenced by species identity, but that may be influenced by priority effects and dispersal limitation. Recent developments have suggested that neutral interactions may be more common at local scales, while niche structuring may be more common at larger scales. We tested for mechanisms that could promote either stable coexistence or neutral drift in a bromeliad‐dwelling mosquito community by evaluating A) if a hypothesized within‐bromeliad niche partitioning mechanism occurs in the community, B) if this mechanism correlates with local species co‐occurrence patterns, and C) if patterns of coexistence at the larger (metacommunity) scale were consistent with those at the local scale. We found that mosquitoes in this community do partition space within containers, and that species with the strongest potential for competition co‐occurred least. Species with overlapping spatial niches minimized co‐occurrence by specialising in bromeliads of differing sizes, effectively changing the scale at which they coexist. In contrast, we found no evidence to support neutral dynamics in mosquito communities at either scale. In this community, a niche‐based mechanism that is predicted to stabilize species coexistence explains co‐occurrence patterns within and among bromeliads.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".